I went fishing for the first time in a year or two yesterday, on Cape Cod. There’s a lot of pleasure in it: the getting up early, the hanging with a guy you like for a few hours, the risk (of navigating through fog), the water, the geography. And yes, the blood pursuit, which has always attracted me. That said, I wonder if I’m not getting too sensitive for fishing, or if the world hasn’t changed to make it seem too barbaric.
I caught a few fish and was struck by how incredibly beautiful the fish are in the water and how ghastly the process is of removing them from their element. They’re only a couple of pounds, and yet against overwhelming odds, they fight you to their utmost, and hold their own for a minute or so. Then you see the white curving flash of their scales, their twisted agonized bodies, close to the boat. One of them managed to break the line at this point, and more power to him. A few others I got on the boat. Even the ones we threw back left blood on the deck, and then too, at that last moment, in the water or being lifted in, they vomited. Spewed their last meal of minnows on to your hands or into the net, on to the deck. Some instinct, my brother-in-law said.
I thought the vomiting was resignation. That they’d fought for the last few minutes and somehow always thought they were going to win. And then they at last realized they weren’t going to win, and used their most extreme measure, of disgorging everything they’d eaten. It reminded me of the moments at the end of the bullfight when the bull at last realizes it’s going to die. It’s been denying this the whole time, and thinking it’s going to win. It’s a proud, amazing creature in that time, then it’s bested and it slumps and loses its belief in itself. In the life of the bullfight, that’s a horrifying, humiliating interval, after the bull’s spirit is broken. The actual murder of the bull is anticlimactic. Or maybe in the fish’s case it is just completely terrified.
Anyway, I went home disturbed. I ate my fish–that of course was our rationale–and brought up my discomfort at dinner. A group of people began arguing about what the fish does or doesn’t feel, a conversation I wanted no part of. A niece of mine, who doesn’t fish but eats them, said that her response to the brutality of the process is to name the fish. Sort of Native American.
When I said that the world may be changing, I mean that we are evolving, growing more sensitive to the destruction of animals. Witness the Michael Vick case. Twenty years ago I doubt there would have been an outcry. When we were on the water yesterday, we saw a bunch of Vietnamese guys in a boat with too many rods. And my brother-in-law said that the Vietnamese are often accused of poaching, taking undersized stripers. So add the deplenishment of the seas, and of course the wanton expenditure of cheap oil, to the cruelty.
It took me a while to get used to eating shrimp or crab after owning tree crabs (sometimes called 'hermit crabs') as pets. I was amazed at their different personalities (the largest ones were often the most gentle) much like you see with cats (obviously on a less expressive scale).
At least with a cut of steak you know the whole cow is providing protein for more than a few people whereas I was consuming countless individual shrimp in my gluttony. I also feel bad for the fish on a number of levels (the hook in the mouth, the suffocation, the bashing to kill or knock-out, the attempts to flop back into the water).
I've been scuba diving and brought up abalone that tried to 'crawl' to the side of the boat. Sometimes I wonder if I am being too sensitive towards a creature that is often food for other creatures or eats other creatures itself. Yet I think a part of out consciousness and evolution requires that we have empathy for other creatures as we know the trials of existence. Just because a killer whale chomps a sea lion in half alive doesn't mean I should display the same technique (especially since I do not need to resort to such methods).
As it has been said, life is nasty, brutish, and short. I often think when eating 'dead flesh' of the Native American 'prayer' towards their kill ("I am sorry mother bear, but I need your fur more…").
~
I think that lamenting the suffering of the fish when our government pours our youth, prestige and money into a bottomless pit of lawless suffering where thousands die every month is pornography.
There are Iraqi mothers today, Phil, who would find that their kids are no more. There are American mothers today that will hear a military SUV at their door.
Vomit your minnows, Phil, cause we all are caught.
And will be fried soon.
Phil – I have to take exception with you on this one since I also spent part of last week on the coast fishing. Albeit in waters a bit south of you and considerably warmer I'm sure, my experience was much like yours based on your description. And I enjoyed every morning I was out there, until the sun rose so hot and brutal that it drove us back to the AC'd shelter of our rented house.
Fish live to be eaten — usually by another fish, but also by other predators such as humans. And similar to bears and pigs (both of which also relish fish, like most of us) we are natural omnivores who thrive on a combined meat and vegetable diet. Fish meat is undeniably the healthiest source of protein and several essential minerals that we will ever have the pleasure to consume.
I'm a reasonably sensitive guy, yet I'm proud to say I harbor absolutely no guilt in catching, cleaning, cooking, and consuming the fish whose short and brutish lives I have personally ended. And neither should anyone else, for if we all were to respect the coastal and shoreline environments (by only visiting and not living there) and were to eat only the fish that we catch ourselves, there would be no fish depletion in our lakes, rivers and seas.
There are quite simply two major factors to blame for the loss of our precious seafood: (1) Over development of shorelines and islands that stems from our innate desires to live close to bodies of water, thereby destroying the very habitats that attract us; and, (2) the commercial fishing industry, which purveys seafood to the millions who are unable or unwilling to catch their own.
Pogo the Philosopher was speaking of the way we treat our seas and freshwater resources when he stated, "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"
I hate that stuff all the more when it's done "for fun". Tough post to read.
A co-worker's only son was just recently killed by an IED in Iraq (the first death of someone I know personally though I know a few others who have had their children serve in theater). She is out on disability as she is most likely suffering some sort of emotional breakdown and cannot continue her job at the moment as if nothing has happened.
To feel for another living creature in no way minimizes or negates that human beings all across the planet are dying for selfish and/or insane reasons. In fact, those that feel for other living creatures deeply probably feel for 'higher' organisms even more intensely. I'm not saying I can't come to grips with my empathy, I still eat meat. I also have fished and cleaned my own catch but am glad it is not up to me to slaughter my own, cows, pigs and chickens. Maybe I would kill them more humanely than a factory farm and slaughterhouse but I'm not anxious to find out. I guess in that regards I am a coward in that I'm perfectly content to let others do my dirty work.
For a lot of people, I think wars are conducted in that manner. Some can cry for blood though they'd barf their guts out if they spilled it themselves or witnessed it (as Himmler is reported to have done). I came of draft age in '75 when Vietnam was over. I seriously considered enlisting but could not come to grips with the thought of being ordered to kill another human being that I could not rightfully conclude deserved killing. I think most of us could apply violence in defense of those we loved and cared about. Without such justification, our hesitation is understandably strong (at least in most people). In fact, part of the military training is to make the killing routine. My friend's son who was with Marines 1/5 for the fall of Baghdad killed people that didn't deserve killing. I learned this at his coming home celebration. I asked him about his experiences in Iraq. His first words were, "We killed people for no reason." His father told me they were ordered to "light up" a vehicle approaching his checkpoint at speed. He did. It was full of women and children. He had to give aid to the wounded amidst the screams and terror who were also amongst the dead and horribly bloody women and children (a SAW does an incredible amount of damage). I know that had to stick with him because it stuck with me and I wasn't even there.
Really sorry to hear about your friend's son LanceThruster and your friend, and all the innocent women and kids who were killed in Iraq. Can't suck any more than that. I hope she is able to integrate this horrific tragedy and still find meaning and some joy in life. I know it would be hard for me to do so.
Phil – Thought you were going to say something about gefilte fish being the reason the the oceans are all depleted. Who knew that AIPAC and the Fishing Lobbies were in cahoots? Those damn Jews!!
The Jews and Iraq
30 Jul 2007 09:28 am
A reader writes:
I thought very highly of your latest column on growing isolationist impulses in the U.S.
I was curious, though, about one of your statements, that "the Israel lobby may panic at signs of swift disengagement." What's your thinking behind that? I ask, because my sources indicate that many within AIPAC would welcome disengagement from Iraq as soon as possible – since, in their view, they'd prefer the administration to devote what little energy and credibility it has left to resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis.
Indeed, when Cheney urged AIPAC to oppose a timetable for withdrawal back in March, he got a very cool reception from the delegates.
The Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency described the scene to Juan Cole thusly:
"I was one of the reporters noting the relatively cool reception for Cheney's remarks, an impression I confirmed later in extensive conversations at the conference. (Similar accounts appeared in Ha'aretz, the Forward and the Jerusalem Post.) There were whole chunks of the Iraq portion of Cheney's Iraq speech that were met with silence – even the clear applause cues. And those portions that were applauded never got even half the hall; I saw most of the hall seated, arms crossed at those times. The boos for Pelosi, by the way, came AFTER she got cheered for her call for a withdrawal. I.e. applause, cheers and then a few scattered boos. The cheers for Pelosi's Iraq withdrawal call, it must be said, were basically polite – not at all overwhelming; but the boos were even weaker . . ."
Likewise, Olmert urged a visiting delegation of leaders of the Reform Movement to reconsider a motion urging the U.S. government to set a firm timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq. The movement's executive, representing some 700 Reform congregations across the U.S., approved the motion by a large majority. But the Reform leaders refused his request, saying they believe a rapid withdrawal would serve Israeli and Western interests better than a prolonged American stay in Iraq.
Long story short, I don't see much enthusiasm among any large Jewish organizations for remaining in Iraq. Given that many in Britain already appear to have a misguided view of the "Israel lobby's" role in the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq, I think it's important to choose words carefully.
Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It!
TrackBack URL for this entry:
link to typepad.com
/>
Alex – What do you make of this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471324&in_page_id=1770
Nasri –
1. Russian "de-democratization" is certainly happening if one looks from the point of view of globalized USA-lead version of it. That "globalized democracy" has its saints and sinners, rituals and hierarchy miserably failed during Eltsyn years, resulting in collapse of the economy and infrastructure. Russia will never be a western democracy, we, who lived there, knew that from the get go.
That does not mean that Russia won't be democratic. The essence of democracy – the high level of participation of people in decision-making process and personal freedoms still are and will remain, I think, above anything that we witnessed during Communist years. But many differences would remain, some of them quite worrisome for NYT journalists.
Russia's main holy cow may not be the Holocaust, it will always celebrate its victories and achievements more than traditional western ones. The West lost its biggest appeal to Russians – its free press. Russian citizens became much less concerned about certain concentration of the Russian press in pro-Kremlin's outlets when they saw how American and European "free press" sold out to neocon interests and how Iraq War coverage was handled.
However, anyone who reads Russian will tell you that although Kremlin exercise much influence over several "official" outlets, especially in TV markets, there is tonnes of really free press very critical of Kremlin, very free radio market and with NO HOLY COWS whatsoever. Russian radioaves and Internet is as free as American one. But the state is very suspicious of foreign NGOs. The people joined the state in that suspicion after so many a "color revolution" was orchestrated and funded by say, Freedom House all over Russian neighboring countries.
2. The biggest turnaround was in the trust system. Anyone who was in Russia in late 80-ies – early 90-ies will tell you that America was the hero of Russian people. I will post a link here to my several posts on similar subject at "Rootless Comsopolitan" about this.
link to tonykaron.com
/>
The essence of the end of the Cold War was not that America won it, but that Russia took a good look at itself in a mirror and did not like what it saw. Reagan was a genius who were capable to communicate with Russia's new generation without traditional Western condescending. He was convincingly trustworthy. And the walls broke.
Now, that trust is gone, and I think – for a very long time if not for a very, very, very very very long time. The reason – Russia was given all the highest level assurances that NATO will not step into the East European countries. And that promise was brutally broken during the drunken years of Eltzyn. It was exactly what Communists always said would happen – West can never be trusted.
Today a young Russian educated person is not at all in love with America the way some of my generation was. America is seen as a dishonest, power-hungry and deceptive superpower, not unlike the Soviet Union, but without Communism.
Michael Gorbachev, by the way, the very guy who broke the spine of the Communist beast, the biggest ally America ever had east of English Channel, agrees. He voiced much disappointment and personal grief about the way NATO advances and he publicly and privately supports Putin in a very strong way. Most of my Russian friends do not believe my words when I say that Bush is as abnormal for America as can be. To tell you the truth I also believe that less and less. Too easy it all happened. Too easy.
So, now Russia is much more interested in EU. And its defense. And to throw some nails under the American globalism car. And to make America taste its own medicine to be caught and locked in Afghanistan, as Russia was in 1980-ies. And to play a Chinese card. And European oil/gas card. Iraqi situation is pure gold for Russia. They see it as a chance to stick it back to America for the betrayal of the promises on NATO.
But the biggest and most important strategic play that Russia will present America quite soon, I believe, will be not on military chessboard and not even political. It will be geo-financial.
If Iraqi was won't end soon, Russia will be capable to organize China, Venezuela and the Arab world oil producers to shrug off the petrodollar noose and accept a flexible multi-currencies payment for oil system. It will set back all these countries for quite a bit at the beginning, but who cares.
Have I answered your question?
Alex, your notes are very interesting, and admittedly they often confirm my European prejudices. I guess we all have something like that.
Alex, your notes are very interesting, and admittedly they often confirm my European prejudices. I guess we all have something like that.
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm
Iran's Oil Bourse: A Threat to the U.S. Economy?
Niusha Boghrati
Worldpress.org correspondent
April 11, 2006
While Iran's nuclear program has become a major focus of the international media, there are many who strongly believe that the program is only a cover for the U.S. government's true motive in a possible attack against Iran.
What some analysts posit is the real concern for the United States is Iran's plan to open its own oil exchange — the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) — with the alleged goal of becoming the dominant center of the Middle East's oil trade.
What makes the IOB the subject of such interest by the American government? According to rumors, which first vaulted the issue into the spotlight, the financial exchange in the aforementioned bourse will trade for oil in euros instead of the U.S. dollar. The dollar has long been the dominant currency for international oil trade.
A Threat to the U.S. Economy?
The debate over the ultimate financial impact of trading oil in euros rather than dollars is a complex one, but according to some experts such a move could lead to a huge drop in value for the American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s.
The IOB has been on Iran's domestic agenda for quite some time and different dates have informally been announced for its opening, all which have been quietly disavowed as the deadline neared.
March 20, the most recent rumored date, was the first day of the Persian calendar year. The Iranian Oil Ministry's public relations department has denied that the date corresponded to the opening of the bourse, and has mostly remained silent about the existence of such a program.
Of course, the effectiveness of the IOB will depend on whether the big international oil trading companies decide to accept deals in euros or not. However, the potential financial impact on the U.S. economy remains more than just idle speculation.
"The weapon of oil in the hands of Iran's regime is more dangerous than any other weapon," said a recently published article in Italy's Panorama newsmagazine.
Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Javad Assemipour, director of the IOB program, told Panorama that the oil trading center, due to open in a few months, will turn Iran into a major oil exchange point.
"Iran's oil exchange with the region's countries and also some of the East Asia states will take place in euros instead of U.S. dollars," said Assemipour.
Some of the major oil-producing countries such as Venezuela (which has boosted its economic ties to Iran) and a few of the larger oil consuming countries, most notably China and India, have already announced their support for the IOB. China and India, along with Russia, are powers that have at various times backed Iran's right to establish its own nuclear program.
There is speculation that the IOB represents Iran's plan to escape any possible future economic sanctions spearheaded by the U.S. However, some postulate that the plan could also endanger the continued existence of Iran's regime. William Clark, an American security expert, predicted that if Iran threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the international oil market, the White House would immediately order a military attack against it.
Some Insist Impact will be Negligible
A number of economists believe that establishing the bourse will prove to be an impossible task for Iran.
"More than 68 percent of the global international oil exchange is in U.S. dollars, and by abandoning dollars Iran will put its own economy in greater danger," said an unnamed Iranian professor of Economics in Paris.
Other experts believe that even if the IOB commences operations, there is not much harm it can do to the U.S. economy.
"Given the fact that Iran's share of the international oil market is somewhere around 5 percent, I do not believe that it can really absorb enough customers around the globe," said Russian economist Natalia Arlova.
"And Iran's unstable political system is another obstacle. Let us not forget that one of the biggest characteristics of the international oil trade centers is stability. Apart from that, the reason the U.S. dollar has been the dominant currency in the oil trade is the huge share America has in the global economy. I do not think that only Iran's ambition to replace the dollar with the euro will be enough. There are much bigger factors."
However the IOB, to be located in the free trade zone of Iran's Kish Island on the Persian Gulf, remains a potential destabilizing factor for the U.S. economy. This, according to some strategic analysts, is a probable motive for the rumored U.S. attack against the country.
Experts point to the fact that the Iraq invasion in 2002 took place after Saddam Hussein refused to accept dollars as a payment medium for its oil exports and Oil For Food program, choosing euros instead. After discovering no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, speculations have been raised that the main cause for the invasion was the White House's fear of the possible financial repercussions of Saddam Hussein's plan to substitute dollars for euros.
Maybe it was that fateful decision by the former Iraqi president which was the last straw for the White House before it sent U.S. soldiers marching into Baghdad.
Cooper is a stooge for ZOG. It was never ever about oil. It was always and only about that damn shitty little country.
Nice try Cooperstein.
Relax Manning. Cooper's post was just tieing into Alex's comment on the fragile situation of the U.S. dollar. (Although he could have provided a link rather than pasting the whole thing.)
Empathy – Thanks. It's hard to know how to respond in situations like that other than to try to be there for the other person. I remember seeing the documentary "Letters Home from Iraq" and instantly recognized a shot of a street right near my house that I rode my bike on as a kid. It was the intro shot for one of the troops that died from Duarte, CA. He was one of the crew in a tank that overturned in the Euphrates river and was drowned. I thought it was odd for me to feel 'more' moved because he was a 'neighbor' when I realized that same anguish would be experienced by anyone in that situation no matter who they were or where they lived; American, American immigrant (as the tanker was), or Iraqi/Afghani. And yet that connection brought it a little closer to home.
I would feel slightly guilty when I'd hear of Marine deaths in Baghdad or Fallujah (I sent care packages to a platoon there) and hoped they were not my friend's son or the troops of 'my' platoon. I also wondered whether any of 'my' Marines were part of the atrocities committed in Fallujah. I wrote them honestly about my politics (against Bush and the war) but hoped that they stayed safe and came home in one piece. I tried not to think too hard about the reality of it being some other family who had to hear such devestating news.
Yeah, but who's to say that MANNING isn't
the stooge here? How about that? You're just
a stooge for PETA, and now you're out in the
cold, Mr. "MANning".
Face it, it's not about the minnow vomit. It's about the blood pursuit of worm vs. fish, and the worms have those hook-shaped WMD's. Or so MANning would have us believe….